Skip to content
Gallery
Debate Judging Template
Debate Judging Center
Judging Template: Parli
My Judging Paradigm
Example Round: 2/27/2021
More
Share
Explore

icon picker
Example Round: 2/27/2021

1. Round Info

Resolution: The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal should terminate the Millenium Challenge Compact agreement with the United States of America in its entirety.
Links:
Tabroom
⁠
, Zoom (Room 127)
Participants
Side
Name
School
Speaker Points
1
Aff
Alice
School 1
​
2
Aff
Jack
School 1
​
3
Neg
Jules
School 2
​
4
Neg
Matt
School 2
​
There are no rows in this table
⁠


2. Round Notes


Ordering and Time Tracking

Speech
Side
Length
Given By
Start Time
End Time
Duration
Set Start
Set End
1
1AC
Aff
7 mins
Alice
​8:24:41 AM
​8:31 AM
7 mins 1 sec
Set Start
Set End
2
1NC
Neg
8 mins
Jules
​8:31:55 AM
​8:40 AM
8 mins 25 secs
Set Start
Set End
3
2AC
Aff
8 mins
Jack
​8:41:14 AM
​8:49 AM
8 mins 3 secs
Set Start
Set End
4
2NC
Neg
8 mins
Matt
​8:49:31 AM
​8:58 AM
9 mins
Set Start
Set End
5
NR
Neg
4 mins
Jules
​8:59:10 AM
​9:02 AM
3 mins 46 secs
Set Start
Set End
6
AR
Aff
5 mins
Alice
​9:03:14 AM
​9:08 AM
4 mins 46 secs
Set Start
Set End
There are no rows in this table
40 mins
41 mins 1 sec
⁠

Prep time tracking
Side
Aff
0
Neg
0
Start Time
End Time
Amount Used
Set Start
Set End
Start Time
End Time
Amount Used
Set Start
Set End
0
0
⁠

Argument Categories and Contentions

⁠
⁠
Hide Empty
Category
Introduced by
Argument list summary
Won By
Judge's Reasoning
1
Intro
​
Definitions
Definitions
Weighing mechanism
Repeating definitions
Road to hell paved with good intentions
Main point: World Bank better or not?
Weighing
​
​
2
Plan
Aff
Plan: Switch to alternate means of aid
Young country will have trouble getting money from World Bank
World Bank better
World bank corrupt too
World bank failed to enforce its rules
Just about Nepal
World bank is worse
No evidence on World Bank
MCC transparent loans
World bank has helped with COVID19, so can in the future
They need to prove that MCC would help better than World Bank
Neg
Back and forth on which organization was more corrupt felt like a tie - with allegations on both sides (notably, neither one directly refuted). Main point that carries is that selishly for Nepal, world concerns don’t seem to impact them.
3
Environment
Aff
Bad environment
Plans are by their priority
Airport project example
Not provided examples
Same projects would happen
Can use money for the environment too
Same projects would happen
Neg
Neg point on plans being their own priorities not well refuted. Why should their plans be overriden?
4
Inconsistent Data
Aff
Isn’t consistent on data / Corruption
Not set up for watching changes over a year to year
Not looking at all the countries, just the Nepali government point of view
Re year-to-year basis
MCC Corruption vs World Bank
Empirical data that it is corrupt
Not set up for watching changes year over year
No evidence
Smallest difference point
MCC should not be able to cut off a country based on imprecise data
Neg
Neg wins on selfish argument - resolution only asks Nepal to look at itself. Hard to leave a meaningful compact for theory of world-wide data issues.
5
Helps people of Nepal
Neg
Helps people of Nepal
Help is just corrupt - World Bank could handle better
Terminating this plan dooms our own country
Neg
Aff did not refute that the current compact helps Nepal
6
Focused on Economic Development
Neg
MCC focused on Economic Development
Not spurring economy as much as World Bank can
No hidden clauses / commitments / etc
Neg
Point was a bit muddled. Not directly refuted by Aff.
7
Young democracy needs help
Neg
Young democracy needs help
Why be negatively impacted in young democracy
They need this help
Neg
Main point that Nepal needs to focus on itself - not well refuted.
8
Summary
​

​
​
There are no rows in this table
⁠


Notes

Category / Contention
Speech
1AC
5
1NC
10
2AC
7
2NC
12
NR
4
AR
6
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Intro
7
Definitions
Fed Democratic Republic
MCC - innovative and indep foreign aid agency to help develop poverty through economic development
Definitions
Agree
Add Entirely: Define as a whole
Weighing mechanism
Net benefits for Nepal
Repeating definitions
(couldn’t pronounce bipartisan)
Road to hell paved with good intentions
Clearly have good intentions
But negative impacts of MCC, World Bank
Main point: World Bank better or not?
​
Weighing
Which one would be better. Switch to World Bank - watch environment and not corrupt
Win on likelihood - data on corruption is true per Center of Global Development - not well suited on year-to-year basis
World bank already done it in the past - already gave $45m for new roads
Plan
11
Plan: Switch to alternate means of aid
World Bank
Environment focus
Indicators interpretted the first
Timeframe 2022
Solves for all the corruption as well as economic and environment
Young country will have trouble getting money from World Bank
Won’t fully trust the Nepali government for these large banks
World Bank better
Helped longer
World bank corrupt too
Mass movement of people
Loans are means of coercion / threats

(couldn’t pronounce coercion)
World bank failed to enforce its rules
Actually hurts more
Just about Nepal
Dooms our own country
World bank is worse
Moving people
Trigger local food securities
Force free-markets through coercion
Causing mass evictions and food displacements

(would have been better to be centered on (a) not possible and (b) why not both?)
(Pro tip: should rank the arguments in the rebuttal)
No evidence on World Bank
​
MCC transparent loans
$500m loan - totally transparent
(repeating where the money is spent)
World bank has helped with COVID19, so can in the future
COVID 19
They need to prove that MCC would help better than World Bank

(dropped the point on World Bank corruption?)
Environment
7
Bad environment
Excavator roads are ...
Airport roads are too costly for what it needs
Ruins environment impact around it
Proposed airport is just an example
Really a timber concession
Wreck both economy and environment
Plans are by their priority
It’s their government’s choices
Same projects would still be funded - Government’s priority
Airport project example
Nepali Times: airport is timber concession
Don’t take from ignorant populist politicians
One of largest journalists - project hurting the economy and environment

(didn’t really refute why overriding their government is better)
Not provided examples
Not provided examples on environmental
Same projects would happen
their governments
Can use money for the environment too
​
Same projects would happen
All these projects chosen by Nepali government priorities
Even if their contentions on economy or environment are true - would be the same
Inconsistent Data
10
Isn’t consistent on data / Corruption
Control of corruption point estimate - midpoint of a range
Half of the countries have controlled corruption scores that are indistinguishable from the mean
Half deemed too corrupt
Can’t control for their data
Not set up for watching changes over a year to year
Statistical noise - not linked to real change
Can make difference on passing vs failing
Smallest point in difference can change it’s standpoint
MCC not doing what it should be doing
Beauracrats are relying on out of date information
Mongolia example - decidedly anti-development actions don’t affect funding
Not looking at all the countries, just the Nepali government point of view
They are getting their new democracy which clearly needs money
Don’t care about the other MCC countries
Re year-to-year basis
No evidence provided
And now doesn’t matter because still getting huge grants from the US
MCC Corruption vs World Bank
No evidence provided
World bank has corruption issues too
Empirical data that it is corrupt
(re-cited)
Not set up for watching changes year over year
Small changes can make passing / failing difference
Small change in politics will cause them to lose their funding
World Bank will not make these errors. Been doing for a long time.

(don’t understand why World Bank better?)
No evidence
Only a website, not data
Smallest difference point
Nepal is getting the money
MCC should not be able to cut off a country based on imprecise data
Center of global development
They shouldn’t be able to do this at all
Helps people of Nepal
3
Helps people of Nepal
Human rights watch quote: US giving Nepal $500m grant investment. Benefiting 23m people - 80% of population
Help is just corrupt - World Bank could handle better
World Bank provided $450m just for road development to recover from COVID19
If dollars diverted through World Bank - World Bank has more resources, experience dealing with corruption
Terminating this plan dooms our own country
Ganguly: $500m grant investment
(repeated where the money is spent)
Without this money, none of these things would have happened
Focused on Economic Development
3
MCC focused on Economic Development
Power lines, etc
No military components - prohibits it
$500m is grant with no interest rate, hidden clauses, etc
Just have to be transparent - more open and clear on where money goes
Not spurring economy as much as World Bank can
They have been leader in helping countries with poverty
$450m to help just with roads
Focus on not allowing corruption
No hidden clauses / commitments / etc
Just fund transparently
Don’t have to join anyone, etc
Choose what they want to do
Can’t use it for militarization
Young democracy needs help
3
Young democracy needs help
2015 first election
Large budget for them
$398m gone into electricity, $52m into transportation, $10m into evacuation, $40m into project management and administration
Why be negatively impacted in young democracy
World Bank has more experience and longer track record
Established after World War 2
More experience with war torn countries
Help more people in positive manner
They need this help
First election in over 20 years
Need the help so democracy can grow

(speaker isn’t following his own roadmap)
Summary
0
⁠


Alternate Views of Notes
Flipped Flow (Speech on left, Category / Contention on top)
Speech
Category / Contention
Intro
7
Environment
7
Inconsistent Data
10
Helps people of Nepal
3
Focused on Economic Development
3
Young democracy needs help
3
Plan
11
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
Summary
Detail
1AC
5
Definitions
Fed Democratic Republic
MCC - innovative and indep foreign aid agency to help develop poverty through economic development
Bad environment
Excavator roads are ...
Airport roads are too costly for what it needs
Ruins environment impact around it
Proposed airport is just an example
Really a timber concession
Wreck both economy and environment
Isn’t consistent on data / Corruption
Control of corruption point estimate - midpoint of a range
Half of the countries have controlled corruption scores that are indistinguishable from the mean
Half deemed too corrupt
Can’t control for their data
Not set up for watching changes over a year to year
Statistical noise - not linked to real change
Can make difference on passing vs failing
Smallest point in difference can change it’s standpoint
MCC not doing what it should be doing
Beauracrats are relying on out of date information
Mongolia example - decidedly anti-development actions don’t affect funding
Plan: Switch to alternate means of aid
World Bank
Environment focus
Indicators interpretted the first
Timeframe 2022
Solves for all the corruption as well as economic and environment
1NC
10
Definitions
Agree
Add Entirely: Define as a whole
Weighing mechanism
Net benefits for Nepal
Plans are by their priority
It’s their government’s choices
Same projects would still be funded - Government’s priority
Not looking at all the countries, just the Nepali government point of view
They are getting their new democracy which clearly needs money
Don’t care about the other MCC countries
Re year-to-year basis
No evidence provided
And now doesn’t matter because still getting huge grants from the US
MCC Corruption vs World Bank
No evidence provided
World bank has corruption issues too
Helps people of Nepal
Human rights watch quote: US giving Nepal $500m grant investment. Benefiting 23m people - 80% of population
MCC focused on Economic Development
Power lines, etc
No military components - prohibits it
$500m is grant with no interest rate, hidden clauses, etc
Just have to be transparent - more open and clear on where money goes
Young democracy needs help
2015 first election
Large budget for them
$398m gone into electricity, $52m into transportation, $10m into evacuation, $40m into project management and administration
Young country will have trouble getting money from World Bank
Won’t fully trust the Nepali government for these large banks
2AC
7
Airport project example
Nepali Times: airport is timber concession
Don’t take from ignorant populist politicians
One of largest journalists - project hurting the economy and environment

(didn’t really refute why overriding their government is better)
Empirical data that it is corrupt
(re-cited)
Not set up for watching changes year over year
Small changes can make passing / failing difference
Small change in politics will cause them to lose their funding
World Bank will not make these errors. Been doing for a long time.

(don’t understand why World Bank better?)
Help is just corrupt - World Bank could handle better
World Bank provided $450m just for road development to recover from COVID19
If dollars diverted through World Bank - World Bank has more resources, experience dealing with corruption
Not spurring economy as much as World Bank can
They have been leader in helping countries with poverty
$450m to help just with roads
Focus on not allowing corruption
Why be negatively impacted in young democracy
World Bank has more experience and longer track record
Established after World War 2
More experience with war torn countries
Help more people in positive manner
World Bank better
Helped longer
2NC
12
Repeating definitions
(couldn’t pronounce bipartisan)
Not provided examples
Not provided examples on environmental
Same projects would happen
their governments
Can use money for the environment too
​
No evidence
Only a website, not data
Smallest difference point
Nepal is getting the money
Terminating this plan dooms our own country
Ganguly: $500m grant investment
(repeated where the money is spent)
Without this money, none of these things would have happened
No hidden clauses / commitments / etc
Just fund transparently
Don’t have to join anyone, etc
Choose what they want to do
Can’t use it for militarization
They need this help
First election in over 20 years
Need the help so democracy can grow

(speaker isn’t following his own roadmap)
World bank corrupt too
Mass movement of people
Loans are means of coercion / threats

(couldn’t pronounce coercion)
World bank failed to enforce its rules
Actually hurts more
Just about Nepal
Dooms our own country
NR
4
Same projects would happen
All these projects chosen by Nepali government priorities
Even if their contentions on economy or environment are true - would be the same
World bank is worse
Moving people
Trigger local food securities
Force free-markets through coercion
Causing mass evictions and food displacements

(would have been better to be centered on (a) not possible and (b) why not both?)
(Pro tip: should rank the arguments in the rebuttal)
No evidence on World Bank
​
MCC transparent loans
$500m loan - totally transparent
(repeating where the money is spent)
AR
6
Road to hell paved with good intentions
Clearly have good intentions
But negative impacts of MCC, World Bank
Main point: World Bank better or not?
​
Weighing
Which one would be better. Switch to World Bank - watch environment and not corrupt
Win on likelihood - data on corruption is true per Center of Global Development - not well suited on year-to-year basis
World bank already done it in the past - already gave $45m for new roads
MCC should not be able to cut off a country based on imprecise data
Center of global development
They shouldn’t be able to do this at all
World bank has helped with COVID19, so can in the future
COVID 19
They need to prove that MCC would help better than World Bank

(dropped the point on World Bank corruption?)
⁠
Contention detail notes
Search
Intro
Plan
Back and forth on which organization was more corrupt felt like a tie - with allegations on both sides (notably, neither one directly refuted). Main point that carries is that selishly for Nepal, world concerns don’t seem to impact them.
Environment
Neg point on plans being their own priorities not well refuted. Why should their plans be overriden?
Inconsistent Data
Neg wins on selfish argument - resolution only asks Nepal to look at itself. Hard to leave a meaningful compact for theory of world-wide data issues.
Helps people of Nepal
Aff did not refute that the current compact helps Nepal
Focused on Economic Development
Point was a bit muddled. Not directly refuted by Aff.
Young democracy needs help
Main point that Nepal needs to focus on itself - not well refuted.
Summary
Intro
Introduced by
Won By
Judge's Reasoning
Arguments
Speech
Summary
Detail
1AC
1
Definitions
Fed Democratic Republic
MCC - innovative and indep foreign aid agency to help develop poverty through economic development
1NC
2
Definitions
Agree
Add Entirely: Define as a whole
Weighing mechanism
Net benefits for Nepal
2NC
1
Repeating definitions
(couldn’t pronounce bipartisan)
AR
3
Road to hell paved with good intentions
Clearly have good intentions
But negative impacts of MCC, World Bank
Main point: World Bank better or not?
​
Weighing
Which one would be better. Switch to World Bank - watch environment and not corrupt
Win on likelihood - data on corruption is true per Center of Global Development - not well suited on year-to-year basis
World bank already done it in the past - already gave $45m for new roads
Show hidden columns
⁠
All Notes without grouping
Speech
Summary
Category / Contention
Detail
1
1AC
Definitions
Intro
Fed Democratic Republic
MCC - innovative and indep foreign aid agency to help develop poverty through economic development
2
1AC
Bad environment
Environment
Excavator roads are ...
Airport roads are too costly for what it needs
Ruins environment impact around it
Proposed airport is just an example
Really a timber concession
Wreck both economy and environment
3
1AC
Isn’t consistent on data / Corruption
Inconsistent Data
Control of corruption point estimate - midpoint of a range
Half of the countries have controlled corruption scores that are indistinguishable from the mean
Half deemed too corrupt
Can’t control for their data
4
1AC
Not set up for watching changes over a year to year
Inconsistent Data
Statistical noise - not linked to real change
Can make difference on passing vs failing
Smallest point in difference can change it’s standpoint
MCC not doing what it should be doing
Beauracrats are relying on out of date information
Mongolia example - decidedly anti-development actions don’t affect funding
5
1NC
Definitions
Intro
Agree
Add Entirely: Define as a whole
6
1NC
Weighing mechanism
Intro
Net benefits for Nepal
7
1NC
Plans are by their priority
Environment
It’s their government’s choices
Same projects would still be funded - Government’s priority
8
1NC
Helps people of Nepal
Helps people of Nepal
Human rights watch quote: US giving Nepal $500m grant investment. Benefiting 23m people - 80% of population
9
1NC
MCC focused on Economic Development
Focused on Economic Development
Power lines, etc
No military components - prohibits it
$500m is grant with no interest rate, hidden clauses, etc
Just have to be transparent - more open and clear on where money goes
10
1NC
Young democracy needs help
Young democracy needs help
2015 first election
Large budget for them
$398m gone into electricity, $52m into transportation, $10m into evacuation, $40m into project management and administration
11
1AC
Plan: Switch to alternate means of aid
Plan
World Bank
Environment focus
Indicators interpretted the first
Timeframe 2022
Solves for all the corruption as well as economic and environment
12
1NC
Young country will have trouble getting money from World Bank
Plan
Won’t fully trust the Nepali government for these large banks
13
1NC
Not looking at all the countries, just the Nepali government point of view
Inconsistent Data
They are getting their new democracy which clearly needs money
Don’t care about the other MCC countries
14
1NC
Re year-to-year basis
Inconsistent Data
No evidence provided
And now doesn’t matter because still getting huge grants from the US
15
1NC
MCC Corruption vs World Bank
Inconsistent Data
No evidence provided
World bank has corruption issues too
16
2AC
Help is just corrupt - World Bank could handle better
Helps people of Nepal
World Bank provided $450m just for road development to recover from COVID19
If dollars diverted through World Bank - World Bank has more resources, experience dealing with corruption
17
2AC
Not spurring economy as much as World Bank can
Focused on Economic Development
They have been leader in helping countries with poverty
$450m to help just with roads
Focus on not allowing corruption
18
2AC
Why be negatively impacted in young democracy
Young democracy needs help
World Bank has more experience and longer track record
Established after World War 2
More experience with war torn countries
Help more people in positive manner
19
2AC
World Bank better
Plan
Helped longer
20
2AC
Empirical data that it is corrupt
Inconsistent Data
(re-cited)
21
2AC
Airport project example
Environment
Nepali Times: airport is timber concession
Don’t take from ignorant populist politicians
One of largest journalists - project hurting the economy and environment

(didn’t really refute why overriding their government is better)
22
2AC
Not set up for watching changes year over year
Inconsistent Data
Small changes can make passing / failing difference
Small change in politics will cause them to lose their funding
World Bank will not make these errors. Been doing for a long time.

(don’t understand why World Bank better?)
23
2NC
Repeating definitions
Intro
(couldn’t pronounce bipartisan)
24
2NC
Terminating this plan dooms our own country
Helps people of Nepal
Ganguly: $500m grant investment
(repeated where the money is spent)
Without this money, none of these things would have happened
25
2NC
Not provided examples
Environment
Not provided examples on environmental
26
2NC
Same projects would happen
Environment
their governments
27
2NC
World bank corrupt too
Plan
Mass movement of people
Loans are means of coercion / threats

(couldn’t pronounce coercion)
28
2NC
No evidence
Inconsistent Data
Only a website, not data
29
2NC
Can use money for the environment too
Environment
​
30
2NC
World bank failed to enforce its rules
Plan
Actually hurts more
31
2NC
They need this help
Young democracy needs help
First election in over 20 years
Need the help so democracy can grow

(speaker isn’t following his own roadmap)
32
2NC
No hidden clauses / commitments / etc
Focused on Economic Development
Just fund transparently
Don’t have to join anyone, etc
Choose what they want to do
Can’t use it for militarization
33
2NC
Just about Nepal
Plan
Dooms our own country
34
2NC
Smallest difference point
Inconsistent Data
Nepal is getting the money
35
NR
World bank is worse
Plan
Moving people
Trigger local food securities
Force free-markets through coercion
Causing mass evictions and food displacements

(would have been better to be centered on (a) not possible and (b) why not both?)
(Pro tip: should rank the arguments in the rebuttal)
36
NR
No evidence on World Bank
Plan
​
37
NR
MCC transparent loans
Plan
$500m loan - totally transparent
(repeating where the money is spent)
38
NR
Same projects would happen
Environment
All these projects chosen by Nepali government priorities
Even if their contentions on economy or environment are true - would be the same
39
AR
Road to hell paved with good intentions
Intro
Clearly have good intentions
But negative impacts of MCC, World Bank
40
AR
World bank has helped with COVID19, so can in the future
Plan
COVID 19
41
AR
Main point: World Bank better or not?
Intro
​
42
AR
MCC should not be able to cut off a country based on imprecise data
Inconsistent Data
Center of global development
They shouldn’t be able to do this at all
43
AR
They need to prove that MCC would help better than World Bank
Plan

(dropped the point on World Bank corruption?)
44
AR
Weighing
Intro
Which one would be better. Switch to World Bank - watch environment and not corrupt
Win on likelihood - data on corruption is true per Center of Global Development - not well suited on year-to-year basis
World bank already done it in the past - already gave $45m for new roads
There are no rows in this table
⁠


3. Final Judge Summary


Winner
Neg
⁠
⁠


Reason for Decision

Neg wins round.
Primary issue was focusing on Nepal. Back and forth on which organization was more corrupt felt like a tie - with allegations on both sides (notably, neither one directly refuted). Main point that carries is that selfishly for Nepal, world concerns don’t seem to impact them.
A few other contentions:
Neg point on plans being their own priorities not well refuted. Why or how would their plans be overridden? Hard to carry the points on environmental impacts without addressing that.
Points on corruption flow to Neg on selfish argument - resolution only asks Nepal to look at itself. Hard to leave a meaningful compact for theory of world-wide data issues.
Aff did not refute that the current compact helps Nepal
Contention on MCC focusing on economic development was muddled and not consistently addressed. Scoring as a tie.
Young democracy needing help flows to neg. Main point that Nepal needs to focus on itself - not well refuted by aff.

Aff Feedback

Good tack to focus on a specific alternative. Main feedback is that the argument for that alternative seemed less evidence based than opinion (e.g. World Bank been along longer, etc).
In terms of the round, a few of Neg’s points were not refuted and flowed through the round. Need to make sure to directly address.

Neg Feedback

Strong round, I flowed most contentions as scoring for Neg.
Main feedback:
Follow your own roadmap: Helping the judge flow is important. In a couple cases, you jumped from point to point.
Start your rebuttal with a clear weighing and a way to consider which arguments the judge should focus on. You had a clear winning point in that Nepal should act in its own self-interests ー make that your star and clearly highlight it, turn the other arguments back to it.

Sidenote: word mispronunciations are sometimes ok / expected. But some of the words were fairly standard debate terms (e.g. coercion), so I would advise practicing those. Note that I mostly ignored this for scoring as you were able to get your point across anyways, but other judges may not.


Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.